Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Drew1776

  • Birthday 01/12/1983

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
    Andrew D.
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Drew1776's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. I only tried pot once and smoked a couple of cigarettes prior to get used to smoking (since I don't smoke). I was pretty much just relaxed and happy. That was fine for awhile but then got annoying. I wanted things to go back to normal and you just need to wait it out. I was very frustrated the next day when my head still seemed to be in a "fog" as though I wasn't thinking at 100%. That was the one and only time I smoked it. I felt retarded and I continued to feel so the next day. I did not like the feeling so I never did it again. If I want to take a recreational drug I stick to alcohol as I understand the effects better and the next day I might have a hang-over but I don't feel retarded. If you try it, my advice would be to just know you've just got to sit back and let it run it's course. I think this lack of forethought can lead to a bad trip. A female friend of mine smoked pot for the first time that night. She became agitated and kept going on how she was dying and we had to call an ambulance. Luckily her boyfriend was able to convince her that everything was alright. I thought that if she wouldn't calm down we might need to tie her up and stick her in the closet until she snapped out of it. She was after all acting like a crazy woman. She was in fine health and was fine the next day BTW. One thing I can say for sure is cigarettes are addictive! The next morning I decided I never wanted pot again because I felt retarded but I did have a gnawing desire to smoke a cigarette. This desire did not subside for several days.
  2. This is probably a long shot. But are there any New England Historical and Genealogical Society (NEHGS) members out there? I'm trying to get a copy of a record but the trouble is it's in their "manuscript collection" and only members can order from the manuscript collection. Thanks!
  3. I agree with themadcat. Clearly a woman's body is her own and a man should have no right to force her into having an abortion (or not having an abortion). The problem arises when a woman doesn't want an abortion so the father is forced to pay for 18 years! I would advocate a contract be drawn up prior to birth where the man clearly acknowledges that he wants and will financially support the baby or not (pehaps support is the default and rejection requeires a legal document by the father). That way the woman has a legal document outlining the man's intentions so if he says, "I'm not paying" then she knows that if she has the baby she will be solely responsible. Of course there would have to be very clear laws regarding such a contract addressing such questions as: When is the latest a man has to acknowledge or reject a child in utero? (early abortions are cheaper and less risky) What if he isn't informed on the mothers pregnancy till after that date? What if she didn't know she was pregnant? etc... In principle I think such a system would work and is the most legitimate. While two people may choose to engage in behavior that may produce a child, it is the mother who makes the decision whether to have the child or not. Therefore responsibility falls to her and should not be not split evenly between the two people who conceived the child. Only the mother can choose to "release" a baby, with a whole set of financial needs into the world.
  4. It sounds as though your brother is the one who is being manipulative. Perhaps your brother isn't the great Objectivist (or the great guy) you thought? Given his actions I don't understand why you are so bent on showing him why he is acting inappropriately. Maybe he doesn't want to know? Perhaps you should give him some space as he doesn't sound like a really nice person. "he also maintains that men and women cannot be 'just friends'." This position is simply absurd. It seems like your initial question was, "how do I patch things up with my brother?" I would say don't bother. You have written him letters you have tried to explain. He does not want to have things patched up. So my response would be you've tried and now you have to leave it up to him. Quit coming back to him because it makes you look weak. To the un-asked question of where your actions unreasonable? I would say no. He brought a woman into your and your families life which you all have bonded with. Now he expects you to keep her at bay because he says so? Since your brother seems to berate you about not knowing enough about Objectivism or not knowing what the right course of action may be, imagine how he treats her! In your position I'd be more interested in continuing a relationship (non sexual) with her rather than with my brother.
  5. I just watched this movie. It definately has an indie feel to it. They music was awful (highly dissonant). There is no proper integration between visual and audio. You're watching the movie and then all of a sudden this bizzare and distracting music starts playing and doesn't stop. Some points: This is a naturalistic movie There are no heroic characters The lead character is not an Objectivist and really doesn't have and "Objectivist traits" This movie is not funny and you will likely not roar "with laughter throughout this movie" The movie is little long
  6. So I’m in a position I haven’t been in before and I’m not quite sure what principle I should follow. At this point I’m interested in the principle (not the law necessarily). The pertinent facts: Recently my wife got into a car crash. A young driver pulled out right in front of her and she T-boned him at 35-40mph. He then fled the scene though the cops caught up with him. Thankfully, my wife wasn’t seriously injured. We did go to the hospital so she could get checked out because her neck hurt and she had a headache. The car was worth ~$5,000 and will likely be totaled. Now my question is what recompense should be sought from the antagonist? Clearly he’ll have to pay the value of the car and associated medical bills but what about something over that? On one hand, assuming we may obtain the “value” of the car it likely wouldn’t be enough to buy a replacement used car. We knew how this car ran it was doing just fine and I’m doubtful we’ll be able to find an equal replacement for the price. If we did find the exact car for the same price there are no guarantees. It could break down a year later and we weren’t in the market for a new used car. So now we’re going to have to jump through some hoops and take on extra risk (dealing with an unknown car). We were placed in this position by a careless driver. Given all this I think the other driver has the obligation to make us “whole” and I don’t think that would occur if we only received the value of the car plus other discreet bills. Another way of looking at it is that he wrecked a car of X value and caused bills of X value so that is all he should have to pay. My specific questions are: Should the antagonist be on the hook for discreet monetary looses (medical bills, towing, value of car, etc.) or for these discreet costs plus something extra? If you agree with the second option how would one quantify in dollar terms that extra amount? The reason why I ask is several people have suggested looking into a lawyer to ensure we can recoup our losses. I’m having trouble figuring out the proper moral course of action.
  7. I would not save the SWSRN. Politicians perpetrate crimes, such as theft and slavery, on a grand scale. There is no way to prevent these crimes or punish the perpetrators (short of a major philosophical shift for a majority of people). Given the seemingly once in a lifetime opportunity to have such a fiend brought to natural justice I would gladly allow nature to take it's course. I think the biggest question is what is the most suitable punishment for politicians? While they may not kill anyone (directly) they use force to enslave millions of people.
  8. My point was an extra copy of a certain chromosome leads to mental retardation. A more exact translation would be trisomy of chromosome 21 leads to mental retardation. Is this an inaccurate statement? Does it not demonstrate the point that genetics can, in some cases, be solely responsible with how a person will act? Please share your wisdom with us! Please explain how I was vague and how my comments were not accurate. Simply posting comments about your knowledge and making little quips about posts without explaination is not terribly useful.
  9. Determinism is the belief that our behaviors are determined. A set of prior occurrences will control how we behave. The assumption is that these occurrences are beyond our control. In most cases with "diseases," such as alcoholism, genetics may play a factor. This clearly would not be determinism. Genetics may influence how we behave but in most cases there are other factors which are present. If I have a mutation which makes me more likely to be an alcoholic, that fact is not determinism because I can still ultimately decide whether to drink irresponsibly or not. Genetics may make it harder on me than other people but I still have a choice so nothing is determined. On the other hand there are some diseases (like down's) which produce a result. It is a simple cause and effect equation, if you have this extra chromosome you will have this period. I would call this determinism, perhaps erroneously, because it is an absolute* cause and effect. *If anyone knows of someone who has an extra chromosome 21 and is not retarded let me know.
  10. Well from a molecular biologist’s point of view: There are some genetic mutations/diseases which clearly and consistently produce physiological or mental impairments. Having an extra copy of chromosome 21, for example, will result in an individual having down's syndrome. So I suppose that would be determinism. Genes do control an awful lot in our body and the fact is there are some things which willpower, reason, strength of character, etc. simply cannot overcome. I would lump cancers in this area as well. Cancer quit literally is due to some form of genetic mutation. Things become more complex with diseases which may have a genetic factor. A great example that you brought up is alcoholism. The problem with these “diseases” is that when the media reports scientific information they oversimplify so a result like, "there appears to be genetic factors which make an individual more prone to alcoholism" gets shortened to, "Scientists find alcoholism gene!" In this regard I think it is carelessness on behalf of the media or people in general who are misrepresenting a scientific finding. The truncated statement seems to claim that a genetic factor is solely responsible for a behavior. Here we now have a case for biological determinism which is invalid because it was not demonstrated experimentally. I'm sure there are people out there who intentionally contort scientific findings (scientists or otherwise) to attempt to present evidence for biological determinism where none exists. The best way to figure out if something was true or not would be to read the original paper published by a scientist. First, what did the scientist claim compared to what you heard? The next step would be to understand how the scientist came to his conclusion. Looking at the data do you reach the same conclusion? Finally you'd want to read other papers by other scientist in the field. Have they studied the same gene? Did they find a similar result? Clearly this kind of analysis is impossible for all genes. I would advise using a more common sense approach: From what I’ve observed and been taught, I think some actions may be influenced, not determined, by genetic factors. So when a researcher can locate a genetic element like a gene and show that the presence of a mutation in this gene appears to correlate with a certain behavior I am unsurprised. (This is not to minimize the importance of the discovery) Were someone to claim that they had identified a mutation in a gene which almost always leads to alcoholism I would be highly skeptical because I would find that highly surprising. Assuming the second finding was true, children with two alcoholic parents would have, at minimum, a 75% chance to be an alcoholic and from what I’ve seen that simply isn’t true.
  11. I saw the movie today and I'd suggest seeing it. I thought it was pretty entertaining though it did drag a little towards the end. The movie mocks the major Western religions as ridiculous, which they are. Unfortunately, the audience is asked to reject religious dogma based upon skepticism and doubt as opposed to reason. This was evident in the trailer and present in the movie. I rarely laugh during movies but there were several times when I laughed out loud. Some people on this forum will be able to appreciate this movie for what it is, others will not. You'll probably know which camp you fall into and if you're interested, I’d say see it. Entertaining and very much like the trailer.
  12. I think your scheming is somewhat unnecessary. I have found that it varies by county (I live in NC too). 1. You could show up on your court date. If the cop is a no show you’re fine. Sometimes a clerk may be able to reduce the ticket for you (or the ticket may be thrown out entirely). 2. You could just get a lawyer. 3. You could plead PJC. This can be risky however because if you get another ticket within 3 years you’ll be hit with both at once. 4. If you were only 9 over I think you’d get points but your insurance wouldn’t go up (check on that) so it doesn’t really matter. I have received three speeding tickets in NC in 3 different counties 21, 18, & 15(I hate pigs BTW) over. I was able to get all of them reduced with the wonderful plea of “improper equipment” with the help of a lawyer. Improper equipment is a non-moving violation (no points) If I were you I’d get a lawyer and see if he can get it reduced to improper equipment. Only some counties alow that I think. The fact that you have no previous violations improves your case imensely.
  13. The movie did not highlight their "happy and fulfilling life". The movie focuses on their struggle to be together. The focal point is the struggle.
  14. Titanic is certainly a romantic movie. Many people are too jaded to appreciate the love story. So it really depends whether you’re jaded or not... The notebook in not a romantic movie, it is a depressing tragedy.
  15. I thought the movie was okay. The few major issues I had were: 1. There is no coherent philosophy surrounding vigilantism in the movie. Either vigilantism is wrong and Batman is a criminal or it is alright in some circumstances and Batman is in the clear. The feeling at the press conference of, "We're happy for Batman now (we sanction his actions) but we've already decided that we'll punish him later” was absurd. Any idiot (as in the people at the press conference) must realize how this is blatantly contradictory. 2. I was really disappointed by the ending. The theme which was heavily pushed was "it's better just to lie for the sake of the greater good." Alfred destroyed the letter which is a lie by omission to Bruce. Rachel intended Bruce to have that letter PERIOD. Alfred had no right to destroy it. The people of Gotham are lied to about Harvey and the blame is put on batman. Aside from being a really dumb lie, they could have blamed any thug that was already dead, it was really unnecessary. 3. Harvey's fall was totally unbelievable. I can see killing those two cops and the mafia guy but what did Gordon do? What did his family do? I understand revenge on those who have harmed you but going after Gordon's family? As was pointed out by a previous poster, the actor who played two-face seemed "too rational" and a rational person doesn't go after random people (like little kids). Maybe if he seemed crazyer I wouldn't have minded so much.
  • Create New...